Is George Osborne trolling lawyers over justice?

'Hypocritical', 'callous', and 'cavalier' are just some of the words used to describe George Osborne's eighth Budget speech this week.

The chancellor's economic policies have the power to make the average Joe richer or poorer in a matter of minutes. Though the public often only listens for those magical words 'pensions', 'fuel', and 'beer duty', it would be far wiser to consider the greater cost the Treasury has now placed on accessing justice.

Lawyers have had a busy week analysing the likely effects of Osborne's fiscal jiggery-pokery on their respective client bases. While celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is dancing for joy at the unexpected 'sugar tax', those law firms representing the world's largest drinks manufacturers will be scratching their heads for answers. And though 'micro-entrepreneurs' will be pleased with a new £1,000 tax-free allowance on online income, a failure to ring-fence domestic violence services will leave many vulnerable victims once again without a place to turn.

The latest Budget is far from good news for those seeking legal advice. The ill-thought-through decision to, once again, raise insurance premium tax (IPT) - this time by 0.5 per cent - represents the government's latest attack on justice. Ahead of the expected announcement, the president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), Jonathan Wheeler, accused Osborne of demonstrating a disregard for the plight of vulnerable and injured people.

Meanwhile, the Bar's chairman, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said the decision was yet another 'obstacle' to anyone seeking to access justice. 'If you need to use the courts,' she said, 'you have to pay a high price before you even step into the court room.'

With legal aid for personal injury claims long since relegated to a dustbin at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), before and after-the-event insurance policies are vital to help cover the cost of legal action. Increasing the IPT to 10 per cent will make pursuing a claim even less affordable for policyholders.

Of course, the government has form when it comes to imposing new poll taxes on justice. Court and tribunal fees have been increased by 600 per cent in recent years, and statistics clearly show these unconscionable charges have directly led to the number of employment discrimination claims plummeting by around 80 per cent.

The government is up to its old tricks and as the Budget monopolised the attention of most, the MoJ quietly revealed that the cost of getting divorced is set to soar by over a third next week. From Monday, the fee to merely process a divorce rose from £410 to £550, despite the actual administrative cost totalling just £270.

As Resolution's Jo Edwards has pointed out, 'divorce is not a "choice to litigate"', but a 'necessary part of the legal process to bring a relationship to an end'. So why should any government be allowed to make a £300 profit on the breakdown of a marriage? Is that what the chancellor means by 'long-term economic plan', or has the Cabinet become a bunch of fundamentalist Christians determined to price people out of divorce?

The justice secretary's unfortunately accurate assessment of a two-tier justice system - one for the rich and another for the rest - shows no sign of being addressed by his colleagues. Perhaps Marilyn Stowe described the situation best when she opined that the government seemed 'determined to continue its systematic destruction of the English legal system'. On current evidence, it is difficult to argue against such a conclusion.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journaljohn.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD